You are leading a product development project using a hybrid approach where design sprints inform traditional manufacturing phases. A highly skilled technical lead from the manufacturing team has begun undermining the design team's iterative decisions in stakeholder meetings, claiming 'real engineering requires upfront planning, not constant changes.' This individual's expertise is critical for production feasibility, but their behavior has caused two design team members to request transfers. The design team's psychological safety scores have dropped significantly, yet the technical lead's assessments have prevented three costly manufacturing errors. What should you do FIRST?

Question

Accepted Answer

The correct answer is A. Option A is correct because it applies emotional intelligence to address both the behavioral issue and the legitimate technical concerns while preserving the valuable expertise (ECO People Task 1.2). The private meeting allows the technical lead to voice concerns without public confrontation, potentially revealing valid integration issues being expressed poorly. The joint session then rebuilds psychological safety through collaborative problem-solving rather than punitive measures. Option B is the main distractor but wrong because it addresses symptoms by removing a valuable contributor without attempting to resolve the underlying methodology tension or coach the individual. This reactive approach loses critical expertise and doesn't build the team's capacity to navigate hybrid complexities. Options C and D either address the issue too generically or too punitively as first steps.

PMP Practice Question: People — Hybrid, Hard

More People Questions